Iran nuclear deal: Fine 'new chapter' or 'historic mistake'?

[h90]

How naive can Obama and Kerry be. This Agreement is outright stupid.Within a few years Iran has nuclear weapons. Iran has outsmarted the Americans, but it is not the first time U.S.A. has ben outsmarted and it won"t be the last.

No it is not.....Iran get very friendly with China and Russia. The only purpose of the deal is to get a foot into that market and damage the Russians.

It is not Obama, I doubt he can find Iran on the map it is some businesses.

[arjunadawn]

I've been watching the Fox News coverage of this issue and see that the naysayers on this forum (and other forum) are mouthing the same objections and half truths, cutting off the historical references at exactly the point that suits their bias.

I'd recommend going outside the Right Wing Echo chamber for some additional news and perspective. You'll be doing yourselves a favour. Constant, unwarranted outrage is no way to go through life.

T

You have noted you watch the news. You comment people on this forum say similar or exact things as some news channel in US you cite (Presumably the US). The connection is... what? These random association that exists only in your imagination concludes they speak 1/2 truths, both the news and TV posters equally impugning the others reputation by having an opinion opposite from your own, thus they are 1/2 correct? So, with no knowledge of a media target audience nor any knowledge of what TV posters watch generally, because they equally say something objectionable to you they are an echo chamber, and biased? Do you not see the vacancy of this assertion?

You make no point; you offer no premise, no deduction, not even a conclusion, only vague pejorative by imagined association. You only offer ad hominem at what you suggest are those who have a different point of view and by (created) association are biased. One could hardly offer a more foundationally bankrupt assertion.

Note regarding naysayers- it is not possible that Iran will abide by this fantasy creation (it is actually not possible!). By one definition this does make posters like me naysayers, as suggested. If that was your inferred point, you could have skipped the nonsense of suggesting historic and observationally based points of view are outrage because you either do not understand the material or cannot articulate a response. You see, unlike many posters here, you actually offer no meaningful information to distill thought; you only protest the light cast by others. You have stated nothing to support your view point, only insisted those who have are personally biased, raging, or echoes. In fact, on both sides of this issue great observations have been offered, you are not among those posters.

This uniquely defines the character of your argument- as inferior!

Calm down. Say it, don't spray it. Your unwarranted outrage is spitting all over my screen.

If you read my other posts on this thread, you'll see that I've provided some elaboration.

From your rant, I can respond only to the parts I think I've understood.

Naysayers: yes, because the only alternative they offer to the negotiated settlement we have now is the annihilation of Iran as an independent nation unless Iran tows the Israel/US line. That's not a viable solution. Is it a perfect deal? No deal ever is. But it does defuse some immediate threats to and from all sides. It lowers the temperature and allows breathing room to develop better relations, improve trust and reduce suspicions--a war monger's nightmare.

Fox gives voice to warmongers like Lindsey Graham and allows them to say outrageous things without challenge, like:

"Obama's taken the world's most destabilizing power, and he's guaranteed they will become a nuclear nation."

He's done no such thing. Iran's program has been on-going for three decades (right after Israel got its nukes). Obama was handed a live firecracker and has defused it, at least for the foreseeable future. And the "most destabilising power in the world"? In the last sixty years that would be The Soviet Union, Israel or The United States--take your pick. Iran isn't even in the top ten.

"This could be a death sentence for the State of Israel."

Israel is an upper income country with nukes and the most modern, best trained, best equipped army in the region. Iran is impoverished, has dilapidated thirty-year-old gear and a population exhausted from decades of sanctions. How are they going to kill Israel? With Pistachios?

"This is like taking a can of gasoline and throwing it on a fire."

No, bombing Iran would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. The agreement does the exact opposite.

"Instead of dismantling their program, we're ensuring that they become a nuclear nation. This is a deal for a deal's sake."

Read the details. In fact, this agreement dismantles much, much more of their program than two decades of sanctions ever did. If anything, American and Israeli belligerency strengthened Iran's resolve to go nuclear.

What Lindsey Graham asserts is repeated all around the right wing circle jerk that is Fox, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh et al. If all one does is stay in that circle, it's no wonder one gets outraged. But these guys are spraying fake outrage and they know it. The people getting sprayed don't have the wherewithal to know it.

Of course, I could be wrong. The fact that what some posters are saying on this thread is the same as what I've read/seen in U.S. Right wing media could be because those media quoting posters on Thaivisa.

T

Your response cuts me in 1/2. I dont agree with your conclusions, but your response was far more considered than my post.

[Thakkar]

I've been watching the Fox News coverage of this issue and see that the naysayers on this forum (and other forum) are mouthing the same objections and half truths, cutting off the historical references at exactly the point that suits their bias.

I'd recommend going outside the Right Wing Echo chamber for some additional news and perspective. You'll be doing yourselves a favour. Constant, unwarranted outrage is no way to go through life.

T

You have noted you watch the news. You comment people on this forum say similar or exact things as some news channel in US you cite (Presumably the US). The connection is... what? These random association that exists only in your imagination concludes they speak 1/2 truths, both the news and TV posters equally impugning the others reputation by having an opinion opposite from your own, thus they are 1/2 correct? So, with no knowledge of a media target audience nor any knowledge of what TV posters watch generally, because they equally say something objectionable to you they are an echo chamber, and biased? Do you not see the vacancy of this assertion?

You make no point; you offer no premise, no deduction, not even a conclusion, only vague pejorative by imagined association. You only offer ad hominem at what you suggest are those who have a different point of view and by (created) association are biased. One could hardly offer a more foundationally bankrupt assertion.

Note regarding naysayers- it is not possible that Iran will abide by this fantasy creation (it is actually not possible!). By one definition this does make posters like me naysayers, as suggested. If that was your inferred point, you could have skipped the nonsense of suggesting historic and observationally based points of view are outrage because you either do not understand the material or cannot articulate a response. You see, unlike many posters here, you actually offer no meaningful information to distill thought; you only protest the light cast by others. You have stated nothing to support your view point, only insisted those who have are personally biased, raging, or echoes. In fact, on both sides of this issue great observations have been offered, you are not among those posters.

This uniquely defines the character of your argument- as inferior!

Calm down. Say it, don't spray it. Your unwarranted outrage is spitting all over my screen.

If you read my other posts on this thread, you'll see that I've provided some elaboration.

From your rant, I can respond only to the parts I think I've understood.

Naysayers: yes, because the only alternative they offer to the negotiated settlement we have now is the annihilation of Iran as an independent nation unless Iran tows the Israel/US line. That's not a viable solution. Is it a perfect deal? No deal ever is. But it does defuse some immediate threats to and from all sides. It lowers the temperature and allows breathing room to develop better relations, improve trust and reduce suspicions--a war monger's nightmare.

Fox gives voice to warmongers like Lindsey Graham and allows them to say outrageous things without challenge, like:

"Obama's taken the world's most destabilizing power, and he's guaranteed they will become a nuclear nation."

He's done no such thing. Iran's program has been on-going for three decades (right after Israel got its nukes). Obama was handed a live firecracker and has defused it, at least for the foreseeable future. And the "most destabilising power in the world"? In the last sixty years that would be The Soviet Union, Israel or The United States--take your pick. Iran isn't even in the top ten.

"This could be a death sentence for the State of Israel."

Israel is an upper income country with nukes and the most modern, best trained, best equipped army in the region. Iran is impoverished, has dilapidated thirty-year-old gear and a population exhausted from decades of sanctions. How are they going to kill Israel? With Pistachios?

"This is like taking a can of gasoline and throwing it on a fire."

No, bombing Iran would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. The agreement does the exact opposite.

"Instead of dismantling their program, we're ensuring that they become a nuclear nation. This is a deal for a deal's sake."

Read the details. In fact, this agreement dismantles much, much more of their program than two decades of sanctions ever did. If anything, American and Israeli belligerency strengthened Iran's resolve to go nuclear.

What Lindsey Graham asserts is repeated all around the right wing circle jerk that is Fox, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh et al. If all one does is stay in that circle, it's no wonder one gets outraged. But these guys are spraying fake outrage and they know it. The people getting sprayed don't have the wherewithal to know it.

Of course, I could be wrong. The fact that what some posters are saying on this thread is the same as what I've read/seen in U.S. Right wing media could be because those media quoting posters on Thaivisa.

T

Your response cuts me in 1/2. I dont agree with your conclusions, but your response was far more considered than my post.

Thank you for your graciousness.

You disagree with my conclusion. My conclusion is that this deal is a workable solution to the problem at hand.

If you disagree, what is your alternative? And by alternative, I mean *viable* alternative--not wishful thinking, not the U.S. and Israel getting everything and Iran getting nothing; that was never going to happen. Issues of international security and sovereignty cannot be solved by beating the other guy to a pulp (whether by sanctions or war).

Opposing one solution while offering no other viable alternative is the very definition of naysaying.

T

[pitrevie]

Hardliners in Iran: It's a bad deal.

Hardliners in USA: It's a bad deal.

Netanyahu: It's a bad deal.

Conclusion: It's a good deal.

You sum it up nicely.

Whackos here, whackos there, hawks here and there....they all don't want it, so it's a good bet that the world is better off with it.

I am waiting for Cheney to pronouce he always gets it wrong.

[F430murci]

Clearly the right wing nuts everywhere hate this but the ones who have common sense appreciate a chance for not charging head first into another war unless we absolutely are forced to. Besides Israel is not a state of the United States so Israel if you want to go attack Iran, go for it yourself and by yourself. I'll enjoy a nice Texas style brisket in the mean time as I for one would not like to see these are the names of the men and women who died this week serving in Iran because of a stupid war of Jeb Bush & Tom Cotton.

Right wing nuts. Hello, this has nothing to do with right or left and everything to do with those possessing common sense v. delusional idiots.

Great idea to lift sanctions, lift arms embargo, let them keep nuclear program and give them crap pot tons of cash so the can fund terrorism. Brilliant!

[up-country_sinclair]

some posting here and many in the world are on the side of the clearly stated Iranian leadership goals:

Death to USA

Death to Israel

OK, we'll wait for you to provide a link to the current Iranian leadership's clearly stated goal of death to the USA.

You must be aware that it's members of what is essentially Iran's "Tea Party" who are involved in the demonstrations you refer to.

By the way, it's very obvious that it's only Israel and its apologists who are opposed to this common sense, practical deal.

But the cold, hard truth is that this is a great step forward for the world community.

[Linky]

Clearly the right wing nuts everywhere hate this but the ones who have common sense appreciate a chance for not charging head first into another war unless we absolutely are forced to. Besides Israel is not a state of the United States so Israel if you want to go attack Iran, go for it yourself and by yourself. I'll enjoy a nice Texas style brisket in the mean time as I for one would not like to see these are the names of the men and women who died this week serving in Iran because of a stupid war of Jeb Bush & Tom Cotton.

Right wing nuts. Hello, this has nothing to do with right or left and everything to do with those possessing common sense v. delusional idiots.

Great idea to lift sanctions, lift arms embargo, let them keep nuclear program and give them crap pot tons of cash so the can fund terrorism. Brilliant!

Well the P5 +1 and the UN inspectors think its a good deal.

But they must be wrong as someone on Thaivisa said so after watching Fox news and frothing at the mouth.

[F430murci]

Clearly the right wing nuts everywhere hate this but the ones who have common sense appreciate a chance for not charging head first into another war unless we absolutely are forced to. Besides Israel is not a state of the United States so Israel if you want to go attack Iran, go for it yourself and by yourself. I'll enjoy a nice Texas style brisket in the mean time as I for one would not like to see these are the names of the men and women who died this week serving in Iran because of a stupid war of Jeb Bush & Tom Cotton.

Right wing nuts. Hello, this has nothing to do with right or left and everything to do with those possessing common sense v. delusional idiots.

Great idea to lift sanctions, lift arms embargo, let them keep nuclear program and give them crap pot tons of cash so the can fund terrorism. Brilliant!

Well the P5 +1 and the UN inspectors think its a good deal.

But they must be wrong as someone on Thaivisa said so after watching Fox news and frothing at the mouth.

I just wrote something someone was saying on CNN. CNN is all over this also. Sorry, not watching Fox. Weather Channel for me. Since when has the UN been a reliable yard stick for reasonableness. I suppose only when it fits your agenda.

Edited July 15, 2015 by F430murci

[arjunadawn]

You have noted you watch the news. You comment people on this forum say similar or exact things as some news channel in US you cite (Presumably the US). The connection is... what? These random association that exists only in your imagination concludes they speak 1/2 truths, both the news and TV posters equally impugning the others reputation by having an opinion opposite from your own, thus they are 1/2 correct? So, with no knowledge of a media target audience nor any knowledge of what TV posters watch generally, because they equally say something objectionable to you they are an echo chamber, and biased? Do you not see the vacancy of this assertion?

You make no point; you offer no premise, no deduction, not even a conclusion, only vague pejorative by imagined association. You only offer ad hominem at what you suggest are those who have a different point of view and by (created) association are biased. One could hardly offer a more foundationally bankrupt assertion.

Note regarding naysayers- it is not possible that Iran will abide by this fantasy creation (it is actually not possible!). By one definition this does make posters like me naysayers, as suggested. If that was your inferred point, you could have skipped the nonsense of suggesting historic and observationally based points of view are outrage because you either do not understand the material or cannot articulate a response. You see, unlike many posters here, you actually offer no meaningful information to distill thought; you only protest the light cast by others. You have stated nothing to support your view point, only insisted those who have are personally biased, raging, or echoes. In fact, on both sides of this issue great observations have been offered, you are not among those posters.

This uniquely defines the character of your argument- as inferior!

Calm down. Say it, don't spray it. Your unwarranted outrage is spitting all over my screen.

If you read my other posts on this thread, you'll see that I've provided some elaboration.

From your rant, I can respond only to the parts I think I've understood.

Naysayers: yes, because the only alternative they offer to the negotiated settlement we have now is the annihilation of Iran as an independent nation unless Iran tows the Israel/US line. That's not a viable solution. Is it a perfect deal? No deal ever is. But it does defuse some immediate threats to and from all sides. It lowers the temperature and allows breathing room to develop better relations, improve trust and reduce suspicions--a war monger's nightmare.

Fox gives voice to warmongers like Lindsey Graham and allows them to say outrageous things without challenge, like:

"Obama's taken the world's most destabilizing power, and he's guaranteed they will become a nuclear nation."

He's done no such thing. Iran's program has been on-going for three decades (right after Israel got its nukes). Obama was handed a live firecracker and has defused it, at least for the foreseeable future. And the "most destabilising power in the world"? In the last sixty years that would be The Soviet Union, Israel or The United States--take your pick. Iran isn't even in the top ten.

"This could be a death sentence for the State of Israel."

Israel is an upper income country with nukes and the most modern, best trained, best equipped army in the region. Iran is impoverished, has dilapidated thirty-year-old gear and a population exhausted from decades of sanctions. How are they going to kill Israel? With Pistachios?

"This is like taking a can of gasoline and throwing it on a fire."

No, bombing Iran would be like throwing gasoline on a fire. The agreement does the exact opposite.

"Instead of dismantling their program, we're ensuring that they become a nuclear nation. This is a deal for a deal's sake."

Read the details. In fact, this agreement dismantles much, much more of their program than two decades of sanctions ever did. If anything, American and Israeli belligerency strengthened Iran's resolve to go nuclear.

What Lindsey Graham asserts is repeated all around the right wing circle jerk that is Fox, Breitbart, Rush Limbaugh et al. If all one does is stay in that circle, it's no wonder one gets outraged. But these guys are spraying fake outrage and they know it. The people getting sprayed don't have the wherewithal to know it.

Of course, I could be wrong. The fact that what some posters are saying on this thread is the same as what I've read/seen in U.S. Right wing media could be because those media quoting posters on Thaivisa.

T

Your response cuts me in 1/2. I dont agree with your conclusions, but your response was far more considered than my post.

Thank you for your graciousness.

You disagree with my conclusion. My conclusion is that this deal is a workable solution to the problem at hand.

If you disagree, what is your alternative? And by alternative, I mean *viable* alternative--not wishful thinking, not the U.S. and Israel getting everything and Iran getting nothing; that was never going to happen. Issues of international security and sovereignty cannot be solved by beating the other guy to a pulp (whether by sanctions or war).

Opposing one solution while offering no other viable alternative is the very definition of naysaying.

T

POST REMOVED FOR SPACE

My post was prior to your last response. I disagree with "I've been watching the Fox News coverage of this issue and see that the naysayers on this forum (and other forum) are mouthing the same objections and half truths, cutting off the historical references at exactly the point that suits their bias." I disagree this is a fair assertion. In any event:

It is a false option that the alternative to this present absurdity called a deal is war... now. This deal strengthens the hand of Iran considerably. I have always asserted that the foolhardy deal will reveal its irrelevance within a very short amount of time; perhaps as little as 24 months. With sanctions currently in place Iran has, as recently as a few months ago, been attempting to secure products for nuclear activities in contravention of sanctions. Where in this history can one state there is room for optimism? Unleashing vast sums of money without a corresponding concession only empowers Iran.

It is a false argument that the alternative to this debacle is annihilation. Iran is not the world's most destabilizing power, the US is. However, Obama is ensuring Iran will become nuclear. He already has ipso facto enabled this.

This is like pouring gasoline on a fire. From Africa to Gaza to Damascus and elsewhere Iran has far more going on sowing conflict than is generally focused on because the nuclear mess eclipses these issues, but it is still among the chief architects of bad things, among them the suspected transfer of nuclear technology from N Korea. Again, the false narrative that bombing Iran is the option is disingenuous. Invariably, this may take place but this agreement, IMO, fast tracks the likelihood of conflict, alienates others, sets up alliances that would not otherwise be fostered, begins an arms race, and minimizes future US legitimacy in the region, even in the eyes of Iran. It is vital people understand Islamic eschatology when trying to grasp the mindset of their actors, with particular regard to war and great confrontation. They are not rational actors in the manner of a western discourse. They primarily interact with the the world through a very different lens than the west. The west suggests constantly it is hopelessly uninformed.

My comment previously was regarded the broad brush you painted posters with. Your response to me was thoughtful enough for me to wish I had refrained from posting in that manner, even though we differ.

[Linky]

You do realise this is not all about the US. The US isnt the world. So if the US backs out of the deal good luck to them, the other countries will press on without them.

This is not about Obama as some here think it is.

[F430murci]

This is a good article and this really sets the stage for Iran to continue status quo and Violate the agreement without a significant risk of sanctiins being put back into place due to Russua and China involvement.

Gotta chuckle. Looks like Putin may have schooled our pathetic leader again.

----------

The good, the bad and the ugly of the Iran nuclear deal

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/11/25/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

Edited July 15, 2015 by F430murci

[Throatwobbler]

You do realise this is not all about the US. The US isnt the world. So if the US backs out of the deal good luck to them, the other countries will press on without them.

This is not about Obama as some here think it is.

But the right wingers are foaming at the mouth about this. It has to be Obama's fault. Everything is Obama's fault.

[Throatwobbler]

It's beyond not caring.

It's more like some posting here and many in the world are on the side of the clearly stated Iranian leadership goals:

Death to USA

Death to Israel

... and also in favor of the OBVIOUS intent of the Iranian regime ... developing nuclear weapons.

As far as I'm concerned, the Iranian regime is an enemy state of the USA and yes a sponsor of terror.

This deal was NOT a peace deal between the USA and Iran but only about an attempt to slow down Iran's nuclear program in return for shiploads of cash.

That was made very clear and in case anyone didn't understand, the Islamofascists in Tehran continued with their Death to USA/Death to Israel chant rallies during the negotiations.

Cheeky buggers.

If accidentally this deal works out in a good way, great, but don't bet the house on it.

More like a North Korea situation but MUCH WORSE.

Once I though you were a level headed sensible poster. Realised the truth a while ago.

[ABCer]

Our allies in the region gave us 9/11 and IS, Iran on the other hand is fighting against these murderers savages, Israel, who we are constantly told is our greatest friend has contributed nothing to peace in the ME but illegal settlements in occupied territories. Perhaps its time we tried something new , because everything we tried in the past has turned into a disaster.

johna, judging by " everything we tried in the past has turned into a disaster" - you are an American.

And you are absolutely right in summing up your successes in the ME - I won't argue about 9/11, about IS and many other "disasters".

Time for a more cautious approach when "trying something new".

I am an optimist and when a dissatisfied person like you thinks that things couldn't be any worse - I say they can!

You, or rather we didn't have a "nuclear disaster" in the ME - not yet. That well may be the "something new" you are looking for.

As to "illegal settlements in occupied territories" Israel builds - putting the questions of legality and occupation for the future politicians to resolve -

once again, being an optimist I concentrate on building at times when every other side including USA are destroying. Everything and everywhere.

Of course, building is more costly and more difficult than destroying, isn't it?

[geriatrickid]

Every politician and his dog knows that Iran want a nuclear capabilities on tap, they themselves made

no secret of it, Iran will have that weapon, everything they did in the last 30 years was striving towards

that goal, now they exercises minds over matters, Iran don't mind and the

world doesn't matter... Iran will have launchable nukes with in the next few years and there is nothing

that will stop them from achieving it....

And that's a good thing, isn't it. Iran is a huge country with millions of very nice, well-educated people. There is one country that want's Iran crippled, and that country already has nukes and has attacked Iran in the past and has threatened to do so again (albeit with subtlety).

MAD is the only way to save Iran from a rogue, aggressive state that wants to cripple it.

Let them have the bomb, for their self-defence.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, though semi democratic, Iran is a more preferable ally in the region. More moderate and cosmopolitan than our gulf state partners.

The country still reserves seats in parliament for jews and allows them to practice their religion for starters. Try that in Saudi.

It isn't too far fetched to see that a country like Iran could figure out some sort of detente with Israel over time, especially given there is a sizeable Iranian Jewish diaspora there too with historical connections back to the place.

Moreover, the real peacemaker here, if it happens, will be trade. Educated and moderately well off nation. US firms should get right in there and fly the flag for all the rightly admirered things that most of the world look to the U.S. for anyway.

Wow. Are you that gullible? Do you realize that jews are allowed ONE seat. Your use of the plural is misleading. One seat allocated for jews and one seat for Christians. That's what they are allowed out of 272 seats. Do you really believe that because Iran reserves a seat for "jews" that makes it a fair and just country? Irans jews live in fear. You conveniently forget the executions the Iranians carried out because Iranian jews wanted to leave, whether it be to the USA or to Israel. You also ignore the persecution of Christians.

The population of jews is aged and the intent is to encourage them to die out. You claim the jews can practice their religions in freedom. How can they do that when they cannot access Hebrew texts? Hebrew is the language of their bible and the language in which their prayers were written. I like your reference to trade. Are you aware that Iran's jews are blocked from entering multiple professions and from moving about freely? They can't even enter most universities. Oh yes, the Iranians are such nice people.

Your comment indicates that you are the type of person who would accept that the Theresienstadt Ghetto was a wonderful place the Germans built for jews. It's ok. You would be in good company with the Red Cross officials who wanted to believe the lies too. They probably didn't have any regrets either.

Edited July 15, 2015 by geriatrickid

[Thakkar]

You disagree with my conclusion. My conclusion is that this deal is a workable solution to the problem at hand.

If you disagree, what is your alternative? And by alternative, I mean *viable* alternative--not wishful thinking, not the U.S. and Israel getting everything and Iran getting nothing; that was never going to happen. Issues of international security and sovereignty cannot be solved by beating the other guy to a pulp (whether by sanctions or war).

Opposing one solution while offering no other viable alternative is the very definition of naysaying.

T

POST REMOVED FOR SPACE

My post was prior to your last response. I disagree with "I've been watching the Fox News coverage of this issue and see that the naysayers on this forum (and other forum) are mouthing the same objections and half truths, cutting off the historical references at exactly the point that suits their bias." I disagree this is a fair assertion. In any event:

It is a false option that the alternative to this present absurdity called a deal is war... now. This deal strengthens the hand of Iran considerably. I have always asserted that the foolhardy deal will reveal its irrelevance within a very short amount of time; perhaps as little as 24 months. With sanctions currently in place Iran has, as recently as a few months ago, been attempting to secure products for nuclear activities in contravention of sanctions. Where in this history can one state there is room for optimism? Unleashing vast sums of money without a corresponding concession only empowers Iran.

It is a false argument that the alternative to this debacle is annihilation. Iran is not the world's most destabilizing power, the US is. However, Obama is ensuring Iran will become nuclear. He already has ipso facto enabled this.

This is like pouring gasoline on a fire. From Africa to Gaza to Damascus and elsewhere Iran has far more going on sowing conflict than is generally focused on because the nuclear mess eclipses these issues, but it is still among the chief architects of bad things, among them the suspected transfer of nuclear technology from N Korea. Again, the false narrative that bombing Iran is the option is disingenuous. Invariably, this may take place but this agreement, IMO, fast tracks the likelihood of conflict, alienates others, sets up alliances that would not otherwise be fostered, begins an arms race, and minimizes future US legitimacy in the region, even in the eyes of Iran. It is vital people understand Islamic eschatology when trying to grasp the mindset of their actors, with particular regard to war and great confrontation. They are not rational actors in the manner of a western discourse. They primarily interact with the the world through a very different lens than the west. The west suggests constantly it is hopelessly uninformed.

My comment previously was regarded the broad brush you painted posters with. Your response to me was thoughtful enough for me to wish I had refrained from posting in that manner, even though we differ.

The offhand and broad brush manner with which I responded to regurgitations of mindless Right Wing talking points manufactured by vested interests is entirely warranted. If they present reasonable and fleshed out arguments, as you have, I would have responded more substantially and specifically. My impression of your thoughtfulness is shaken by your own use of broad brush to paint Muslims, but I'll get to that later.

The worries you assert are not unreasonable. They are however overblown and assume that a perfect solution was somehow possible. The agreement deals with some of them while fudging slightly on others.

My assertion that the alternative was war is not at all wrong. That is exactly what Netanyahu and the the Republican hawks were proposing. Faced with endless sanctions, belligerency, mistrust and intimidation it was a certainty that Iran would eventually acquire a nuke. A bombing by Israel would then have been inevitable. Why should we (or Iran) worry over what these blowhards were saying? Because these are many of the same people who were beating the drums of war in 2003 over Iraq.

If North Korea could get nukes, Iran would certainly have succeeded, and soon. (As you yourself say). That was a clear and present danger and that, plus the possibility of an Israeli attack, is what has been averted. Now, everyone gets a breather and more time, with lowered temperature, to try harder to sort things out. Iran may yet get nukes. But with intrusive inspections, destruction of 96% of its already enriched uranium and the dismantling of its fortified underground facility, it will take longer. Possibly ten years. Plus by that time, a more moderate, prosperous Iran is less likely to cause mischief. A proud country backed into a corner, humiliated, intimidated, isolated and wounded by sanctions that has nukes is far more dangerous than a country with nukes that is prospering and a fully fledged and respected member of the international community.

Ideally, no country in that volatile region should have nukes (not to mention no country at all). But the reality is that Israel, hardy a loved or friendly power in the region, has them, and so everyone else wants them. The agreement recognises that idealism cannot be the enemy of the possible.

All nations, for the most part, are rational players, playing for their national interests. Muslim or otherwise. To ascribe imagined Jewish, Oriental, Christian or Muslim sensibilities and religious-inspired nefariousness to the highly intelligent, accomplished and serious diplomats engaged in these complex negotiations is beyond unwarranted. It is absurd. Such prejudicial thinking means that we better not bother with any kind of international diplomacy with anyone who isn't exactly like us. The result would be perpetual hostilities and constant fingers on triggers.

T

[arjunadawn]

The offhand and broad brush manner with which I responded to regurgitations of mindless Right Wing talking points manufactured by vested interests is entirely warranted. If they present reasonable and fleshed out arguments, as you have, I would have responded more substantially and specifically. My impression of your thoughtfulness is shaken by your own use of broad brush to paint Muslims, but I'll get to that later.

The worries you assert are not unreasonable. They are however overblown and assume that a perfect solution was somehow possible. The agreement deals with some of them while fudging slightly on others.

My assertion that the alternative was war is not at all wrong. That is exactly what Netanyahu and the the Republican hawks were proposing. Faced with endless sanctions, belligerency, mistrust and intimidation it was a certainty that Iran would eventually acquire a nuke. A bombing by Israel would then have been inevitable. Why should we (or Iran) worry over what these blowhards were saying? Because these are many of the same people who were beating the drums of war in 2003 over Iraq.

If North Korea could get nukes, Iran would certainly have succeeded, and soon. (As you yourself say). That was a clear and present danger and that, plus the possibility of an Israeli attack, is what has been averted. Now, everyone gets a breather and more time, with lowered temperature, to try harder to sort things out. Iran may yet get nukes. But with intrusive inspections, destruction of 96% of its already enriched uranium and the dismantling of its fortified underground facility, it will take longer. Possibly ten years. Plus by that time, a more moderate, prosperous Iran is less likely to cause mischief. A proud country backed into a corner, humiliated, intimidated, isolated and wounded by sanctions that has nukes is far more dangerous than a country with nukes that is prospering and a fully fledged and respected member of the international community.

Ideally, no country in that volatile region should have nukes (not to mention no country at all). But the reality is that Israel, hardy a loved or friendly power in the region, has them, and so everyone else wants them. The agreement recognises that idealism cannot be the enemy of the possible.

All nations, for the most part, are rational players, playing for their national interests. Muslim or otherwise. To ascribe imagined Jewish, Oriental, Christian or Muslim sensibilities and religious-inspired nefariousness to the highly intelligent, accomplished and serious diplomats engaged in these complex negotiations is beyond unwarranted. It is absurd. Such prejudicial thinking means that we better not bother with any kind of international diplomacy with anyone who isn't exactly like us. The result would be perpetual hostilities and constant fingers on triggers.

T

Agree with you or not, it is a pleasure to go back and forth with someone who does flush out why he has the opinions he does. It usually matters less to me that others disagree then whether they actually make sense; and yes, lots of folks who disagree with me often do make sense. It is somewhere unique in how we process agreed upon facts that each of us may arrive at different conclusions.

Example: Each point you make above is pretty much valid. In fact, I read your post a few times and measured it against what I really think- with regards to what the options are with Iran. I actually find it is less clear to me which is the best alternative option. I think this current plan sucks but I remain unsure which better less-suck-alternative exists- the measurement being to avoid war. Let me be clear, or rephrase, Iran is a highly sophisticated and ancient people. Indeed, common folk would assert they are master negotiators; I think this is a widely held belief in most ages. In this regard, and in their own best interests, yes, of course they are rational actors. However, the western yardstick for discourse and diplomacy can hardly compete as Iran has the latitude to negotiate in earnest, on multiple levels. As noted elsewhere, it is a hard thing to prove that Iran conforms to international law or even treaties; it will do so when and if these agreements comport with Islamic jurisprudence, and related (entered into with caveat so long as comports with islamic law). Okay, good bad right wrong, this is their measure of law and diplomacy. It does not mean that knowing this they cannot be negotiated with. I assert, however, that this is not the negotiating awareness of the recent discussions. Because someone has culturally more latitude with regard to meaning and implementation of laws does not mean they cannot be dealt with, but whoever sits at the table simply must account for this. I just believe the store was given to them before they were asked to pay for anything.

So, I question myself, following your notes: what about sanctions? Was sanctions actually working? Well, yes and no. They were working but Iran still moved inexorably toward the capability we sought to avert, so the working was actually just harming the economy, perhaps marginally impacting state at all. In this regard it is only a matter of time before sanctions overtly failed. So in conclusion I cannot say sanctions were working, though lots of idiots said they were. Time should not be the discriminator in success for such things. If wrong is wrong is wrong it should likewise be wrong today as tomorrow as 10 years. So, the sanctions cannot be said to have succeeded. Likewise, I do not think this plan will for the same reasons. I will not even comment on those such as McCain and Graham. They are both disgraces as men, disgusting as statesmen, and really no more than water-boys for the neocon military industrial complex. There is little about such men that is redeemable, by any measure.

I do not think the US attacking Iran would have been successful or even useful for multiple reasons. (I think warring upon Iran would be a f---ing disaster. Not because of any particular capability but because the US should simply stay the hell out of nation meddling. We are all sick of it, Americans and the world alike). First, unless one has all out war there can be no certainty of mission success. You must have boots on the ground. Without all out war there would be such a high likelihood of an incomplete mission to render it clearly more disastrous then useful; the further loss of American legitimacy alone would empower Iran more abstractly and completely as a victim.

This deal actually does not take military action off the table for Israel. It increases the likelihood that Israel will begin escalating unilateral plans, which is has already formulated. What it also does is increase the alienation of Israel both before and after any Israeli actions, as "we have a deal" and "let it work its way out" and other restrictive, isolating, perhaps even fair comments to Israel to restrict their choices. In other words, this gives Obama et al cover for action to rebuke, deny, and even thwart Israeli unilateral action. In this regard I believe this cover was in large part of the calculations. Obama knew that should Israel act in opposition to Obama's wishes before a deal, once begun, powerful forces would array to demand the US support Israel, and stay restrict Obama's choices. With a deal in place, however absurd, Obama would be able to rally near universal diplomatic condemnation of Israel and see to it any Israeli campaign was abruptly ended. I believe this. I do so because I believe Obama has his eye on another prize with regard to Israel and neutering Israel is part of Obama's longer strategy to exact other concessions. Iran gains from this as surely as Israel loses (and I do not even mention Israel losing with regard to the Iran deal directly. Israel loses in another dimension of diplomatic space).

Its beyond complicated but clearly, as a premise, I hold Obama in contempt as having both mercenary motives/ulterior agenda beyond the Iran morass. What needs to happen immediately is a discussion on how to measure and respond to Iran breaking the deal. It will be hard as the biggest obfuscators will be those who have been the biggest thus far- the US. The US will produce great smoke and mirrors to mitigate Iranian intransigence because to do less would be political suicide. More effort will be put into denying Iran is breaking the deal than actually enforcing it. With this much political capital at stake, I am certain.

[Thakkar]

The offhand and broad brush manner with which I responded to regurgitations of mindless Right Wing talking points manufactured by vested interests is entirely warranted. If they present reasonable and fleshed out arguments, as you have, I would have responded more substantially and specifically. My impression of your thoughtfulness is shaken by your own use of broad brush to paint Muslims, but I'll get to that later.

The worries you assert are not unreasonable. They are however overblown and assume that a perfect solution was somehow possible. The agreement deals with some of them while fudging slightly on others.

My assertion that the alternative was war is not at all wrong. That is exactly what Netanyahu and the the Republican hawks were proposing. Faced with endless sanctions, belligerency, mistrust and intimidation it was a certainty that Iran would eventually acquire a nuke. A bombing by Israel would then have been inevitable. Why should we (or Iran) worry over what these blowhards were saying? Because these are many of the same people who were beating the drums of war in 2003 over Iraq.

If North Korea could get nukes, Iran would certainly have succeeded, and soon. (As you yourself say). That was a clear and present danger and that, plus the possibility of an Israeli attack, is what has been averted. Now, everyone gets a breather and more time, with lowered temperature, to try harder to sort things out. Iran may yet get nukes. But with intrusive inspections, destruction of 96% of its already enriched uranium and the dismantling of its fortified underground facility, it will take longer. Possibly ten years. Plus by that time, a more moderate, prosperous Iran is less likely to cause mischief. A proud country backed into a corner, humiliated, intimidated, isolated and wounded by sanctions that has nukes is far more dangerous than a country with nukes that is prospering and a fully fledged and respected member of the international community.

Ideally, no country in that volatile region should have nukes (not to mention no country at all). But the reality is that Israel, hardy a loved or friendly power in the region, has them, and so everyone else wants them. The agreement recognises that idealism cannot be the enemy of the possible.

All nations, for the most part, are rational players, playing for their national interests. Muslim or otherwise. To ascribe imagined Jewish, Oriental, Christian or Muslim sensibilities and religious-inspired nefariousness to the highly intelligent, accomplished and serious diplomats engaged in these complex negotiations is beyond unwarranted. It is absurd. Such prejudicial thinking means that we better not bother with any kind of international diplomacy with anyone who isn't exactly like us. The result would be perpetual hostilities and constant fingers on triggers.

T

Agree with you or not, it is a pleasure to go back and forth with someone who does flush out why he has the opinions he does. It usually matters less to me that others disagree then whether they actually make sense; and yes, lots of folks who disagree with me often do make sense. It is somewhere unique in how we process agreed upon facts that each of us may arrive at different conclusions.

Example: Each point you make above is pretty much valid. In fact, I read your post a few times and measured it against what I really think- with regards to what the options are with Iran. I actually find it is less clear to me which is the best alternative option. I think this current plan sucks but I remain unsure which better less-suck-alternative exists- the measurement being to avoid war. Let me be clear, or rephrase, Iran is a highly sophisticated and ancient people. Indeed, common folk would assert they are master negotiators; I think this is a widely held belief in most ages. In this regard, and in their own best interests, yes, of course they are rational actors. However, the western yardstick for discourse and diplomacy can hardly compete as Iran has the latitude to negotiate in earnest, on multiple levels. As noted elsewhere, it is a hard thing to prove that Iran conforms to international law or even treaties; it will do so when and if these agreements comport with Islamic jurisprudence, and related (entered into with caveat so long as comports with islamic law). Okay, good bad right wrong, this is their measure of law and diplomacy. It does not mean that knowing this they cannot be negotiated with. I assert, however, that this is not the negotiating awareness of the recent discussions. Because someone has culturally more latitude with regard to meaning and implementation of laws does not mean they cannot be dealt with, but whoever sits at the table simply must account for this. I just believe the store was given to them before they were asked to pay for anything.

So, I question myself, following your notes: what about sanctions? Was sanctions actually working? Well, yes and no. They were working but Iran still moved inexorably toward the capability we sought to avert, so the working was actually just harming the economy, perhaps marginally impacting state at all. In this regard it is only a matter of time before sanctions overtly failed. So in conclusion I cannot say sanctions were working, though lots of idiots said they were. Time should not be the discriminator in success for such things. If wrong is wrong is wrong it should likewise be wrong today as tomorrow as 10 years. So, the sanctions cannot be said to have succeeded. Likewise, I do not think this plan will for the same reasons. I will not even comment on those such as McCain and Graham. They are both disgraces as men, disgusting as statesmen, and really no more than water-boys for the neocon military industrial complex. There is little about such men that is redeemable, by any measure.

I do not think the US attacking Iran would have been successful or even useful for multiple reasons. (I think warring upon Iran would be a f---ing disaster. Not because of any particular capability but because the US should simply stay the hell out of nation meddling. We are all sick of it, Americans and the world alike). First, unless one has all out war there can be no certainty of mission success. You must have boots on the ground. Without all out war there would be such a high likelihood of an incomplete mission to render it clearly more disastrous then useful; the further loss of American legitimacy alone would empower Iran more abstractly and completely as a victim.

This deal actually does not take military action off the table for Israel. It increases the likelihood that Israel will begin escalating unilateral plans, which is has already formulated. What it also does is increase the alienation of Israel both before and after any Israeli actions, as "we have a deal" and "let it work its way out" and other restrictive, isolating, perhaps even fair comments to Israel to restrict their choices. In other words, this gives Obama et al cover for action to rebuke, deny, and even thwart Israeli unilateral action. In this regard I believe this cover was in large part of the calculations. Obama knew that should Israel act in opposition to Obama's wishes before a deal, once begun, powerful forces would array to demand the US support Israel, and stay restrict Obama's choices. With a deal in place, however absurd, Obama would be able to rally near universal diplomatic condemnation of Israel and see to it any Israeli campaign was abruptly ended. I believe this. I do so because I believe Obama has his eye on another prize with regard to Israel and neutering Israel is part of Obama's longer strategy to exact other concessions. Iran gains from this as surely as Israel loses (and I do not even mention Israel losing with regard to the Iran deal directly. Israel loses in another dimension of diplomatic space).

Its beyond complicated but clearly, as a premise, I hold Obama in contempt as having both mercenary motives/ulterior agenda beyond the Iran morass. What needs to happen immediately is a discussion on how to measure and respond to Iran breaking the deal. It will be hard as the biggest obfuscators will be those who have been the biggest thus far- the US. The US will produce great smoke and mirrors to mitigate Iranian intransigence because to do less would be political suicide. More effort will be put into denying Iran is breaking the deal than actually enforcing it. With this much political capital at stake, I am certain.

What looks to me a light at the end of the tunnel is, to you, the light of an on-coming freight train.

Indeed, people can draw different conclusions from the same facts. But there's nothing unique in that. The film Rashomon illustrates this beautifully.

It's all fair dinkum if those conclusions are arrived at honestly after a fair assessment of all available facts--actual facts, not made up, asserted or unreasonably, even deceitfully, implied facts. People can have honest disagreements, and I have no problem with that.

As I've made clear, my earlier comments on the Right Wing echo chamber, Fox News reporting, comments by Republicans like Graham and Netanyahu are harsh not because of their views, but because of their dishonesty. Dishonesty at this level on such important matters by people in high places with such influence is a crime against decency. Peoples' lives and the destiny of nations are at stake and the public deserves honest, measured and unmuddied debate from such people and the media.

Sometimes facts are used to make dishonest or irrelevant arguments. For example, some Republicans and some media oppose the deal because it doesn't include the release of four Americans deemed to have been held illegally by the Iranians. If we were to take issue with any kind of agreement over the many things it *doesn't* deal with, we would never have any deals anywhere between any parties over anything at any point in time. The critics are intelligent enough to know this, yet persist in advancing these spurious arguments, because there are idiots who buy such arguments.

I don't know what you mean by "Islamic Jurisprudence" in this context. The terms of the agreement that all the major powers have signed on to are fairly clear, as are the penalties for non-compliance, as are the agreed methods by which compliance will be monitored by trusted independent parties. The What, When's and How's are self-contained within the agreement and "Islamic Jurisprudence"--whatever that means--doesn't come into it. In any case Prejudicial and illogical tropes on the "nefariousness of Muslims" (or Christians or atheists) hold no water with me, so let's leave that alone.

Since you agree that a U.S. attack on Iran was a non-starter, that the sanctions weren't working, and that Iran would eventually have got nukes, it seems to me that your disagreement is based on two factors: it wasn't a good enough deal (from the American and Israeli perspectives) and Iran can't be trusted to abide by it. There is some mutual contradiction here. If Iran has got the better of The American in this agreement, then surely they will abide by it since it is to their advantage. By your reasoning It is the Iranians who must worry that the Americans won't abide by the deal.

In any case, as I've said above, the trust issue is resolved within the terms of the agreement, and this deal is the best both sides have deemed achievable. It is what it is.

In any event, a looming crisis has been averted, or at least temporarily defused by peaceful, diplomatic means, and that is to be cheered.

I disagree that this gives Israel a bigger opening to attack Iran. The agreement has strong international support, and while I wouldn't put it past Israel to go against international wishes, remember that this agreement also has the strongest support at the highest levels of this and a possible future Hillary Clinton administration. I believe Israel will not take the risk. I also think US public opinion is rallying behind this agreement and so Israel will not get much cover there either, if it decides to do the unthinkable. I haven't looked yet, but it will be interesting to see where Israeli public opinion is on the issue, and how it evolves over the next few weeks and months.

I've pretty much said everything I'd like to say on the issue. Thank you for fleshing it all out from me. I appreciate the time and effort you've put into your posts.

Cheers

T

[Linky]

Posts are getting far too long for me. Short and sweetnis much better.

[Merzik]

Sure. Why shouldn't Saudi and Egypt get nukes.

Then what's next? ISIS with nukes?

Maybe these Armageddon-ready types are on to something.

Obama will be out of office by then. Legacy Schmegacy.

Oh well!

e

JFK tried his best to keep Israel from getting nuclear weapons. Israel was whinning about Egypt's WMDs back then:

"For the record, here is JFK's letter to Ben Gurion demanding inspection of the Dimona nuclear reactor. Was Kennedy our last president with any guts? Don't bother answering.

Dear Mr. Prime Minister:

I welcome your letter of May 12 and am giving it careful study.

Meanwhile, I have received from Ambassador Barbour a report of his conversation with you on May 14 regarding the arrangements for visiting the Dimona reactor. I should like to add some personal comments on that subject.

I am sure you will agree that there is no more urgent business for the whole world than the control of nuclear weapons. We both recognized this when we talked together two years ago, and I emphasized it again when I met with Mrs. Meir just after Christmas. The dangers in the proliferation of national nuclear weapons systems are so obvious that I am sure I need not repeat them here.

It is because of our preoccupation with this problem that my Government has sought to arrange with you for periodic visits to Dimona. When we spoke together in May 1961 you said that we might make whatever use we wished of the information resulting from the first visit of American scientists to Dimona and that you would agree to further visits by neutrals as well. I had assumed from Mrs. Meir's comment that there would be no problem between us on this.

We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world stability which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel. I cannot imagine that the Arabs would refrain from turning to the Soviet Union for assistance if Israel were to develop a nuclear weapons capability - with all the consequences this would hold. But the problem is much larger than its impact on the Middle East. Development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel would almost certainly lead other larger countries, that have so far refrained from such development, to feel that they must follow suit.

As I made clear in my press conference of May 8, we have a deep commitment to the security of Israel. In addition this country supports Israel in a wide variety of other ways which are well known to both of us. [4-1/2 lines of source text not declassified]

I can well appreciate your concern for developments in the UAR. But I see no present or imminent nuclear threat to Israel from there. I am assured that our intelligence on this question is good and that the Egyptians do not presently have any installation comparable to Dimona, nor any facilities potentially capable of nuclear weapons production. But, of course, if you have information that would support a contrary conclusion, I should like to receive it from you through Ambassador Barbour. We have the capacity to check it.

I trust this message will convey the sense of urgency and the perspective in which I view your Government's early assent to the proposal first put to you by Ambassador Barbour on April 2.

Sincerely,

John F. Kennedy

http://www.sott.net/article/269311-JFK-told-Israel-If-you-want-US-aid-shut-down-your-nuclear-bomb-factory

We all know what happened to JFK

Edited July 16, 2015 by Merzik

[Chicog]

Posts are getting far too long for me. Short and sweetnis much better.

Yeah I think Jeb Bush was complaining that Obama uses "long words", too.

[Thorgal]

Posts are getting far too long for me. Short and sweetnis much better.

Yeah I think Jeb Bush was complaining that Obama uses "long words", too.

And euh...ignore lists are also getting longer too...[emoji99] Edited July 16, 2015 by Thorgal

[arjunadawn]

What looks to me a light at the end of the tunnel is, to you, the light of an on-coming freight train.

Indeed, people can draw different conclusions from the same facts. But there's nothing unique in that. The film Rashomon illustrates this beautifully.

It's all fair dinkum if those conclusions are arrived at honestly after a fair assessment of all available facts--actual facts, not made up, asserted or unreasonably, even deceitfully, implied facts. People can have honest disagreements, and I have no problem with that.

As I've made clear, my earlier comments on the Right Wing echo chamber, Fox News reporting, comments by Republicans like Graham and Netanyahu are harsh not because of their views, but because of their dishonesty. Dishonesty at this level on such important matters by people in high places with such influence is a crime against decency. Peoples' lives and the destiny of nations are at stake and the public deserves honest, measured and unmuddied debate from such people and the media.

Sometimes facts are used to make dishonest or irrelevant arguments. For example, some Republicans and some media oppose the deal because it doesn't include the release of four Americans deemed to have been held illegally by the Iranians. If we were to take issue with any kind of agreement over the many things it *doesn't* deal with, we would never have any deals anywhere between any parties over anything at any point in time. The critics are intelligent enough to know this, yet persist in advancing these spurious arguments, because there are idiots who buy such arguments.

I don't know what you mean by "Islamic Jurisprudence" in this context. The terms of the agreement that all the major powers have signed on to are fairly clear, as are the penalties for non-compliance, as are the agreed methods by which compliance will be monitored by trusted independent parties. The What, When's and How's are self-contained within the agreement and "Islamic Jurisprudence"--whatever that means--doesn't come into it. In any case Prejudicial and illogical tropes on the "nefariousness of Muslims" (or Christians or atheists) hold no water with me, so let's leave that alone.

Since you agree that a U.S. attack on Iran was a non-starter, that the sanctions weren't working, and that Iran would eventually have got nukes, it seems to me that your disagreement is based on two factors: it wasn't a good enough deal (from the American and Israeli perspectives) and Iran can't be trusted to abide by it. There is some mutual contradiction here. If Iran has got the better of The American in this agreement, then surely they will abide by it since it is to their advantage. By your reasoning It is the Iranians who must worry that the Americans won't abide by the deal.

In any case, as I've said above, the trust issue is resolved within the terms of the agreement, and this deal is the best both sides have deemed achievable. It is what it is.

In any event, a looming crisis has been averted, or at least temporarily defused by peaceful, diplomatic means, and that is to be cheered.

I disagree that this gives Israel a bigger opening to attack Iran. The agreement has strong international support, and while I wouldn't put it past Israel to go against international wishes, remember that this agreement also has the strongest support at the highest levels of this and a possible future Hillary Clinton administration. I believe Israel will not take the risk. I also think US public opinion is rallying behind this agreement and so Israel will not get much cover there either, if it decides to do the unthinkable. I haven't looked yet, but it will be interesting to see where Israeli public opinion is on the issue, and how it evolves over the next few weeks and months.

I've pretty much said everything I'd like to say on the issue. Thank you for fleshing it all out from me. I appreciate the time and effort you've put into your posts.

Cheers

T

All Iranian/Islamic state foreign treaties, etc., cannot be the supreme law of the land unless otherwise comporting with Sharia law, subordinate to it, and otherwise follow the concrete precepts of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. It is folly to overlook the implications that Iranians will and do enter into binding commitments but those commitments being fulfilled must be subordinate to Islamic law; this is secondary and takes place within the host nation. This does not mean one cannot negotiate, indeed, Islamic states and others often do, but the current dialogue seems to account for none of this. This fact was widely discussed with citations on another thread on TV. A perfect example of this was... hrmm, the Human Rights or Rights of the Child whereby it was signed but the caveat then being its implementation requires islamic law to supersede, totally eviscerating the value of the documents. They simply could not create the implementing legislation because of Islamic law. So, perhaps you suggest this does not apply or is not apparent yet. Ok, I only assert this cannot be overlooked; the consequences are too grave. (Note: it is no coincidence that the "treaty" is 10 years. There would have been no other way to get them to the table).

I believe there is a train coming from either direction. Let me be clear: I am tired of war. I do not advocate nor think it is wise unless exigent conditions present. I have zero use for the neocons. Period! The US has shed more blood and money empowering islam over the past years than our human capital deserved. Foolish, empire building forays based on no more than policy hawks imagining "Which Path to Persia" and how to string the US "String of Pearls" (in the middle east and asia).

I also believe no linkage should have derailed the process yet every effort should have been made to wrap this into it. Was it? In the absence of any evidence either way it cannot be concluded they tried. Only that it has not happened. If they did try, and the Iranians refused, this should have guided future concessions. In essence, all the deal is are concessions. I remain very confident that Iran will quickly reveal its dismissal of this deal once sanctions are lifted, and certainly within the next 18 months. Therefore it is not too long to wait to call me wrong. I assume we will both be here? (It will not be lost upon this government how quickly things changed when US Presidents changed previously. At least this experience would likely inform their choices for the next 18 months).

You offer a fair appraisal of my position: It was not a good deal and Iran cant be expected to abide by it in any event. This is correct. Yet you reach a fallacious conclusion. Because Iran will be better stationed following this deal it does not follow that it is to their advantage to follow it. Indeed, with as much capital invested by the west it is likely if Iran will sidestep the agreement the west will be hesitant to indict, indeed, outside the US few have an appetite for continued oppression as the Iranians are suffering more than the state. No, it is not a contradiction. No, it does not follow that because they have a better deal they will abide by what is had. Iran is an avowed enemy of the US and others. Their entire legitimacy is predicated upon this otherworldly battle against wickedness in high places, as they see it. While relatively rational they are absolutely theocratic and this overriding fact guides the end game.

I remain unsure what has been averted. The US had effectively if not explicitly removed military action from the table. Israel never has and this act increases the likelihood that Israel will act unilaterally, in various ways if not directly. No, nothing has been averted and if there was a moral imperative to achieve this deal and toward that moral imperative a feeble amount of time was gained only, then nothing was gained. The only lesson would be there was no moral imperative to act. If there was no moral imperative to act than the sanctions were a crime. You cannot have a moral imperative and when compromised continue to call it such. It is something else, but then not moral legitimacy which guided the US actions. Time gained has value nevertheless? Time gained is great if you are released from prison early but I am unsure it has value with regard to a moral imperative to stop nuclear proliferation. This can only be calculated in retrospect, I suppose.

I agree totally, Israel will not get much cover except from the same stale voices of US empire- McCain, et al. You are correct. This agreement isolates Israel diplomatically. I remain unsure if it isolates Israel practically.

My best to you.

[Thorgal]

Our allies in the region gave us 9/11 and IS, Iran on the other hand is fighting against these murderers savages, Israel, who we are constantly told is our greatest friend has contributed nothing to peace in the ME but illegal settlements in occupied territories. Perhaps its time we tried something new , because everything we tried in the past has turned into a disaster.

Nice baiting post.

Iran has supported Hamas, Hizbollah, Assad and various jihadis in the region. The only reason Iran opposes ISIS is because ISIS hates Shiites. ISIS is Sunni. Iran is Shiite. It is not because Iran wants peace or wishes to protect the world. It is a sectarian stuggle. Syria has been a vassal puppet state of Iran for quite some time.

The Arab world does not want Iran to grow stronger or to have access to nuclear missiles. If there is action against Iran, it will come from Arab countries, and if Israel is involved, it will have received the ok from the Arab world. You are naïve if you think the UAE, Saudi Arabia, North Africa, including Egypt and Jordan will accept the deal. Israel can not act alone and will need permission from Jordan and Saudi Arabia because it will need to use their airspace.

Syrian Army is composed of Alawites, Christians, Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Telling different is false.

Hezbollah militants are fighting in Syria together with the Syrian Army on the same frontlines. Even more, the Hezbollah militants are also represented in the Syrian Kurdish Hezbollah entity. Just to explain the diversity.

Telling here that Shia Iran is fighting a sectarian war against Sunni ISIS is wrong. Majority of Syrian Army is Sunni by the way and they fight with (Russian and) Iranian weapons.

Moreover you tell that Iran supports sunni Hamas ?????? Where is the sectarian struggle here ?

- Israel criticised for years the Iranian nuclear program.

- Israel engaged multiple times in wars against Hezbollah in Lebanon.

- Israel bombed Syrian military facilities and shot down a Syrian fighter jet. Moreover, Israel provides medical support to the Syrian opposition.

Do we need to be surprised that there is "non-sectarian" Syrian/Iranian coalition ?

Israel shouldn't count too much on Arab states after they've provoked conflicts. Surely after the latest sceptical approach of the US under president Obama.

The nuclear deal will perhaps (I hope not) turn into an Israeli instigated sectarian conflict between Shia and Sunni...surely not starting in Syria !

Edited July 16, 2015 by Thorgal

[ggold]

Syria is mostly Sunni, Rules by the minority Alawites (shia) Assad government. Iran is proping up the Shia government. So this is very much a sectarian conflict. Probably the reason ISIS has had so much success in Syrian is because the army, what's left of it is mostly Shia or unwilling conscripts, That is why Assad needs Hezbolah fighting ISIS. He can't rely on his own army to beat ISIS.

There well may be a pact of sorts between the Kurds and Hezbolah. They are both fighting ISIS. But the Kurds want a homeland of their own, and the Turks would not be happy with a Kudish state on it's boarder, What of the Kurds in Turkey? Hezbolah are beholding to Iran, and that is why they are fighting. Not Sectarian? Nothing but sectarian.

This nuclear deal will be shown to have been a failure, All it will do is create an arms race in the middle east, Russia being the main benefactor of contracts to build nuclear reactors. Obama's legacy will be the Iranian bomb.

[Chicog]

Again: You can always bomb them if they don't play nice..

[Jingthing]

A recent analysis I read mirrors my reservations. The deal is a huge high stakes bet on Iran becoming a better country in the next 10 years. Based on what logic? The deal releases billions of dollars, some of which will be to boost the civilian economy and some to fund Iran's nastiness. The former is good, the latter is bad. There is more reason for pessimism than optimism but nobody knows for sure how this will turn out and don't believe anyone who says that they do.

Again, this deal isn't only about the bomb which Iran is getting sooner or later anyway, but about the future of Iran and the Middle East.

I think there is a lot to the theory that this is about Obama's legacy and that he is trying to finally "earn" the peace prize he got before basically for being black with a Muslim family background. I respect Obama's intelligence and assume he doesn't really know how this will turn out either. If (not great odds) it turns out wonderfully and Iran does become a much better country, he propels his legacy to one of the greatest U.S. presidents. If it turns out so so, his legacy is still OK.

If it fails, his legacy is also still OK ... as it will be seen as a reasonable gamble done with good intentions.

So the big big gamble he played with the world is really not that big a gamble for his legacy.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Scott

[BKKBobby]

Assad is a "ok" dictator by middle eastern standards. Regional actors are either propping up Assads regime as Iran is doing or supporting takfiris as Turkey and the Saudis are doing. The Syrian civil war isnt a nice and neat story where every actor and player are clearly defined as good guy or bad guy with regards to the conflict.

Edited July 16, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Jingthing]

White House goes full on Persian!

[Linky]

A recent analysis I read mirrors my reservations.

The deal is a huge high stakes bet on Iran becoming a better country in the next 10 years.

Based on what logic?

The deal releases billions of dollars, some of which will be to boost the civilian economy and some to fund Iran's nastiness.

The former is good, the latter is bad.

There is more reason for pessimism than optimism but nobody knows for sure how this will turn out and don't believe anyone who says that they do.

Again, this deal isn't only about the bomb which Iran is getting sooner or later anyway, but about the future of Iran and the Middle East.

I think there is a lot to the theory that this is about Obama's legacy and that he is trying to finally "earn" the peace prize he got before basically for being black with a Muslim family background.

I respect Obama's intelligence and assume he doesn't really know how this will turn out either.

If (not great odds) it turns out wonderfully and Iran does become a much better country, he propels his legacy to one of the greatest U.S. presidents.

If it turns out so so, his legacy is still OK.

If it fails, his legacy is also still OK ... as it will be seen as a reasonable gamble done with good intentions.

So the big big gamble he played with the world is really not that big a gamble for his legacy.

Again, this is not all about the US. Jeez some on here think the US is the be all and end all. There are other countries involved in this agreement.